Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-09 MinutesM • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on September 9, 1996 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Johnson, Lorel Hoffman, Jerry Allred, Gary Tucker, Mark Sugg, John Forney, Conrad Odom, and John Harbison. STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Rich Lane, Dawn Thomas, Jim Beavers, and Heather Woodruff. Mag Milm_1I] 01 LIl"allii l The minutes were approved as read. CONSENT AGENDA VA96-11.00: EASEMENT VACATION • JAMES WETWISKA- S. OF SANDINGHAM ST. AND W. OF HIGH AVE. The only item on the consent agenda was submitted by James Wetwiska for property located south of Sandingham Street and west of High Avenue. The property is zoned R-1 and contains approximately 0.38 acres. The request was for a one foot easement vacation from a 25' utility easement. Approval subject to the applicant providing a legal description of the proposed vacation. Mr. Allred moved to approve the item. Mr. Harbison seconded the motion. The roll was called and approved unanimously. h`I1►A $liby I�LIi.Xy LSD96-30.00 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR LEWIS BROTHERS LEWIS BROTHERS LEASING CO: N OF LONGVIEW & W OF COLLEGE AVE The next item on the agenda was a large scale development submitted by Development Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Lewis Brothers Leasing Co. for property located north of Long • View Drive and west of College avenue. The property is zoned C-2 and contains approximately � 5( • Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 Page 2 14.59 acres. The proposed development includes approximately 1.08 acres for a proposed 13,000 square foot building, parking lot and vehicle storage area. The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission to determine the required length of the extension of Plainview Avenue to the south to the existing intersection of Plainview Avenue and Longview Street. Planning Commission to determine the requirement, if any, for contribution toward the improvement, or improvements to Longview Street. 2. Staff approval of the detailed plans, specifications and calculations where applicable for grading, drainage, water, sewer, streets, sidewalks and tree preservation. 3. All plat review comments, including those written comments furnished 15 August 96. 4. Fire protection and hydrants as requested by the Fire Chief. • 5. The LSD approval will be valid for one calendar year from approval. Ms. Little stated there had not been a Subdivision Meeting for this project, but they had tried to meet earlier that afternoon. Unfortunately only one commissioner was able to attend. While at the meeting, they did discuss the north -south street which would run from Milsap to the present Longview. The proposal was to extend the street to the length of the frontage of the present development. The other question raised at the meeting was whether the City should require contributions or improvements to Longview. She stated that along Longview on the north side there is curb and guttering with adequate street width up to the point of the Lewis Brothers' car rental facility. Beyond this area it is an uncurbed and guttered street. She stated Commissioner Allred, Jim Beavers, Dawn Thomas, the applicants and herself were present at the meeting. They discussed improvements to Longview as well as extension of the street. They realized that some of the streets were substandard and they needed right-of-way. However, they felt at this point the present site is only taking a quarter to one-third of the land that is available in the area to be developed and there would be additional requests in the future. There is a development planned to the west with a street which would intersect with the site. For that reason, they were recommending the construction of the street shown on the plan with a caveat to the developer that they do expect the other streets at the time. Ms. Johnson clarified that the staff recommended the construction of Plainview about 1/3 of the way from the northern property line down into the property, ending near the 1245 contour line as shown as on the plan. She asked what was proposed for the course of the street south and east of • that point. 2s�- • Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 Page 3 Ms. Little stated they had not called for that, but they could call for it. She would like the applicant to address the issue. They had not called for the dedication of the right-of-way because they were not certain of the alignment of the road. The building on the south portion of the plan was a nice single family home. They knew the dedication of the land would cause its removal. It might be possible to move the road a little to the east or the west or to bring the road straight down. A little of the information needed to be coordinated with Washington Medical Center, who owns the site to the west and has been talking to the county about a facility there. They felt there was enough unknown about the site, adding there were a number of alignments that could take place, and given that no further development could take place without an additional large scale, they felt there was adequate opportunity to make those decisions. They had spoken with the applicant and they have a small internal service drive they could use to access from their present facilities. They did plan their main access to be from the Plainview Avenue from Milsap. They expressed that it was key to the construction of the building. They were planning on making a very attractive building. Mr. Tucker questioned the proposed private drive. Ms. Little stated they had not addressed that, but it would have to be constructed to City • standards to be approved as a public street. She added the right-of-way should be dedicated at this time. Ms. Johnson questioned if she meant the right-of-way on which the street sits or the future right- of-way to the south. Ms. Little stated if the street was going to be constructed they wanted it public; the part that was not to be constructed they were not addressing in terms of right-of-way at this time. Ms. Johnson asked if they could ask for a right-of-way south of the 1255 contour line without knowing the location of the proposed street. Ms. Little stated Longview ran north and south and the street that it would intersect with at a right angle would be Longview. Ms. Johnson questioned if they wanted Plainveiw to intersect with Longview then since they did not know where the road should be located. It would be a mistake for the right-of-way. Ms. Little added that utility companies often take blanket easement which they then use. They were able to give the best information as where the street should occur, because of development that is occurring around it and for that reason they have not recommended the taking of a specific • right-of-way. The remainder of the area, Mr. Lewis's property, at least two thirds of it is vacant. There will be a need for additional development, but there will be ample opportunity to take the • Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 Page 4 right-of-way. The main question should be if the one access from Plainview would be adequate for service to this facility. If not, there is an overwhelming reason to require the other right-of- way and the construction of the street at this time. Mr. Harbison questioned if the committee considered connection with Burrel instead of Longview. Ms. Little stated Burrel was a dirt road leading into a field and they did not consider that connection because the land was vacant and was not owned by the applicant. Mr. Forney questioned the private drive to connect to the existing facility. Mr. Brian Ray, DCI, stated there had been discussion on the development of private drive between the existing gravel storage area and the extension of Plainview Road, but the slope was at least 10-15% and it would not be feasible. They had not designed anything; it wasjust something they had discussed. Mr. Forney asked how much traffic there would be between the two facilities. • Mr. Ray stated there would be very little. Other than being owned by the same company, they served different clients and the clients who would be coming to this facility would not be coming first to the Ford or the Chrysler dealership. It would be used mostly by the employees of the body shop. Mr. Forney questioned if the existing body shop would be moved off premises to the collision center. Mr. Lewis stated the traffic between the two dealerships and the collision center would be very little. They were serving different customers and most of their motion was by insurance companies so they were more less told where to go. It would be operated as a separate, free- standing facility. Mr. Tucker questioned the curb and gutter on Longview. Mr. Lewis stated the curb and gutter stopped at the west end of the Chrysler property and there was no curbing on the south side of the street. Ms. Hoffman questioned the privacy fence shown. Would it be along Milsap only or would it surround the entire vehicle storage area? • Mr. Ray stated a privacy fence would be the same material as the building. The building facade 025' • Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 Page 5 was going to be a stand-up, precast concrete facade and they were going to extend the same material down as a privacy fence so it would look like one seamless entity and would not be able to see vehicles. As for the view from other areas, because of the topography and the trees, it would not be visible. Ms. Johnson clarified that it would not be visible from Plainview, Milsap, or Longview. Mr. Lewis stated the building would have no garage type door in front; they would be around the south and east sides of the building. Mr. Len Schaper, alderman 4th ward, stated he thought there would be a street connection from Plainview on the north with part of the development on Milsap down to either the south piece of Plainview or Longview. He questioned what was on the lot directly northwest of the intersection of Longview and Plainview. Ms. Little stated there was a nice house there, owned by the Lewises. She added they did not have a way to get a street connection at this time with out removing the house. is Mr. Schaper expressed concern that when they get Washington Regional to the west of this property, there will not be a way to get there from College without going all the way to Milsap. He thought they needed to plan a street connection somewhere in the Longview corridor. It (Washington Regional) needed to be a facility with great ease of access, even though the current facility did not require the ease of access. Ms. Little agreed, but that part of property owned by Washington Regional was not the part where the major hospital facilities will be. They will be axillary facilities. She added they had met with them already on street extensions and locations of streets and they were working on that. She added he was correct, in the rezoning report they did put in the time of development they would look for the extension of Plainview. They did not know they would bring only one- third of the site at the time of development. They felt the condition existed and it would have to occur, but they felt it could occur at the next stage of development. That would give them more flexibility for a better plan in the long run. Mr. Schaper stated he wanted to avoid a situation where the road would never connect. Ms. Little stated they had made it clear to Mr. Lewis. Ms. Johnson questioned if the two parcels on Longview were owned by the applicant. • Ms. Little stated a portion of the parcel labeled southwest southeast 26-17-30 was not owned by the Lewises. The portion from the line labeled 210 that extended in the north -south direction and mss • Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 Page 6 westward was owned by the applicant. It had been acquired in parcels over time. Mr. Forney questioned if the connection would have to made eventually. Ms. Johnson stated that in the minutes there was discussion on a connector street. Ms. Little added they discussed the connection at council level and she had stated they would address those in the large scale process, but during the rezoning they were trying to make them aware of the connections they would be looking for. Some of them were on the master street plan, but not all of them. Mr. Forney questioned if the small property was not part of the rezoning and they did not have any real say over the property. He added they could sell the property tomorrow to someone who might choose never to develop it. Ms. Little stated they could sell the smaller property but the large one would require a lot split. Mr. Lewis stated in the long picture it would not make sense for them to not put the road in. The • question now was not knowing what the hospital was going to do with the road north or south of their property. It would depend a great deal on where the road should be placed or where Longview would go straight and connect into the hospital property. That was the reason they were asking to wait on the street, but they were willing to go ahead and state they would dedicate the right-of-way to run the street on up to Plainview or Longview, wherever the best connection would be at the time they were ready to develop the rest of the property. Ms. Johnson clarified that he had no problem giving them the assurance of the right-of-way. His only problem was putting it on the map when they did know where the road was going to go. Mr. Lewis stated there were several different options on where the road could connect and added that it all needed to blend together. It would be to their best interest to place the street where it best fits at that time. Ms. Johnson questioned if they could place it on the master street plan. She added that streets on the master street plans did not have rights-of-way but they put the community on notice that it would be somewhere in the area. Ms. Little stated that the extension east and west of Longview was on the master street plan; the extension south of Plainview was not. 40 Ms. Johnson questioned if they would be placing the street on the master street plan. SI • Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 Page 7 Ms. Little replied that the master street was a planning tool and the streets placed on the master street plan were to be collector and above. One thing they would need to consider would be traffic volume. She did not think it would be inappropriate to use the master street plan and she thought it would accomplish their goal. She questioned if Ms. Johnson was recommending an amendment to the master street plan to extend Plainview south. Mr. Harbinson questioned if they were planning on sending Longview directly west. Ms. Little stated it was planned to go directly west across the Lazenby addition. Mr. Tucker questioned if the reasoning on stopping at the 1260 contour line was because any development west of the proposed extension of Plainview would offer the Committee to extend the Plainview connection further down. Ms. Little stated it met the conditions they had talked about at the rezoning. At the time it would come through large scale, they had the right to require the street improvements and the developer to build the street for the portion of the property that would be affected by it, as in this case. • Mr. Allred questioned if as a condition of approval that the developer would sign a bill of assurance that on the call of the City, they would dedicate a significant amount of land at the City's direction for additional right-of-way so it would go wherever development occurs. Ms. Little stated one of the things they looked for at the time of development is that the improvements that are required of the developer be related in proportion to the need for it that they are causing. She thought it was appropriate for them to discuss the connections and their need for them. It would hard to require him to make improvements if he chose not to agree with them. Mr. Allred stated every one was in agreement that it needed to happen; they just needed to find a vehicle to accomplish it. Mr. Harbison questioned if they could amend the master street plan tonight or if they would have to have notification. Ms. Little responded she was unaware of any regulation that would require him to give fifteen days notification, but she felt uncomfortable about the commission taking that action tonight. She thought they would be better served to give proper notification and have public input. She added the City Council could make the changes without the same notice they would have to give and with out the same public hearings. is Mr. Odom stated they would not have to make the change if Mr. Lewis came forward with a bill • Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 Page 8 of assurance. Mr. Lewis stated it made no sense for them not to have a street through there someplace. The only problem was they did not know where the someplace was. He stated he would give a bill of assurance that they would dedicate the right-of-way to put the street in the appropriate place where it would best serve all parties. Ms. Johnson stated they were talking about the same general connection that was from south end of Plainview and would be built on south either to connect with Longview and/or Plainview and/or Ken Ray. Mr. Lewis stated anywhere it would connect with a south and an east -west road. Mr. Harbison questioned when the bill of assurance would be triggered. Mr. Lewis thought it would be triggered when they came back with a development that would take in most of their land. • Mr. Allred stated they could determine and take the right-of-way dedication at the time that Washington Regional decided where the street was going to be and do the development when Mr. Lewis developed his property. He added his understanding was that a bill of assurance would guarantee the right-of-way would be granted, not that the construction of the street would be granted. Mr. Lewis stated that was what he had meant. Mr. Allred stated it should be at the call of the City. If Washington Regional came through with a large scale and it was determined at that point where the road would be, the city needed to go ahead and get the right-of-way lined up so if there was more development they would know where the street was going to be even though Mr. Lewis was not ready to develop. Mr. Lewis stated they would know where they were going to put it and they could have the right- of-way. Ms. Johnson questioned about potential improvement to Longview. Ms. Little stated there would be two opportunities, now and at the time of future development to require that. She added they knew to the west of their present facility there needed to be additional improvements. It would be difficult to make improvements for that at this time since • the street was not connecting at this time. She thought there would be a need when the street connected with Plainview. .'�5e • Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 Page 9 MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments, plus the developer offer a bill of assurance granting additional right-of-way in accordance with a collector street to be at the call of the city when the city determines the direction for the street layout. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson questioned if his motion was assuming the extension of Plainview to the south so it would connect either with Longview or Ken Ray or Plainview further to the south. Mr. Allred stated his motion was to leave the direction open-ended to best serve the future development and that it would be adequate enough for a collector street. He stated they would be limiting themselves if they placed a direction on the bill of assurance, since they did not know what the direction of the development would be. As long as they have the assurance that they would receive a right-of-way it needed to be as open as possible to give the Planning Commission in the future the best and the most flexibility as far as development. • Ms. Little added that they needed to be in agreement that the portion of Plainview that is being constructed from Milsap south would be a public street. Ms. Johnson stated that would be a second addition, the portion of Plainview to be built would be a public street. She asked Mr. Lewis if this would be acceptable to him. Mr. Lewis stated that it would be, adding that there was only two or three areas where it could exist. Ms. Hoffman questioned if they would want to include anything in the motion concerning the upgrading of Longview at such time. Mr. Allred stated they would include improvements to Longview, which could be addressed at future development. Ms. Johnson stated that the addition of the Longview comment needed to be added as an amendment since it was not in the motion. She questioned Ms. Little if they would have the power to require improvements to Longview if the rest of the property developed. Ms. Hoffman questioned Mr. Lewis if they planned on making improvements to Longview when they put the connection through. 40 Mr. Lewis stated they did not own all the property on Longview and the part on the north side of • Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 Page 10 Longview they had already curbed and guttered. If they were going to connect Longview it would have to be upgraded but he was not going to do the entire street. Ms. Johnson stated the motion was that they approve the large scale subject to the staff comments and subject to the bill of assurance offered by Mr. Lewis that he would dedicate right- of-way when the location of the street was determined by the City. He would dedicate right-of- way from the southern end of Plainview pursuant to the City directive, and also that Plainview would be a public street. The roll was called and the motion was passed, unanimously. • 0 ,2Sy • Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 Page 11 RZ96-17.00 REZONING R-1 TO R -O PATRICK TOBIN- N OF POPLAR AND W OF SHADY LANE The next item on the agenda was a request submitted by Patrick Tobin for property located north of Poplar and west of Shady Lane. The property is zoned R-1 and contains approximately .26 acres. The request is for a rezoning to an R -O district. The staff recommends approval of the rezoning as being consistent with the category designated for this area in General Plan 2020, as well as begin compatible with adjacent property to the east. Ms. Johnson added the property was very close to the railroad track on Gregg street. Ms. Little stated the property did adjoin R -O property to the east. Ms. Johnson questioned what was located on the property. Ms. Little stated the home that was on the property had been moved; it was now vacant. • Mr. Sugg questioned the zoning of the lot on the comer of Easy and Poplar. Ms. Little stated it was R-1 and there was a piece of R-2 but the reminder of the block was R-1. She stated the area to the north of Pear street was C-2. Mr. Pat Tobin, owner of the property, stated he owned the property to the east which was zoned R -O. He added they had removed the home on the site when he took possession, because it had been condemned. He stated they were negotioning to buy the little white house that was on the comer of Easy Street. The property across the street was zoned I-1 and they felt the R -O would be a good addition to the area. MOTION Mr. Odom moved to approve the zoning request. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. The roll was call and passed unanimously. CJ IM :;tt'i • Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 Page 12 CU96-17.00: CONDITIONAL USE FOR A DUPLEX WANDA SIMS -S OF HUNTSVILLE RD AND W OF ROBERTS RD. The next item on the agenda was submitted by Wanda Sims for property located south of Huntsville Road and west of Roberts Road. The property is zoned R-1 and contains approximately .055 acres. The request was for a conditional use to allow a duplex in an R-1 zoning district. The staff recommended denial of the conditional use request on the basis that this area was mostly large lot, single family homes and agricultural uses. A finding of compatibility can not be established. The applicant was not present. Ms. Little requested the commission not the take action on the request because the applicant was not present. • Ms. Johnson stated they would not act on the item tonight. CI aL/�i • Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 Page 13 CU96-24.00: CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW A DANCE HALL RICHARD SHEWMAKER-S, OF DICKSON AND W. OF GREGG ST. The next item on the agenda was submitted by Richard Shewmaker for property located south of Dickson and west of Gregg Street. The property is zoned C-3 and contains approximately .28 acres. The request was for a conditional use to allow for a dance hall. The staff recommended approval contingent upon the following: 1. Inspection by Fire Marshall and Building Inspector. 2. Compliance with the noise ordinance, including section 96.04, limiting maximum noise levels by land use. 3. Compliance with conditional use criteria, section 160.195 with specific regard to refuse location, lighting and glare, and signage. • Ms. Little stated they had received a letter this afternoon and she was present tonight. Ms. Johnson questioned since the staff recommendations did not address the parking, the conditional use request did not carry with it any parking requirements. Ms. Little stated the ordinances did not require any parking, because it was in the Dickson Street improvement area. Ms. Paula Marinoni, an area resident, stated she had only been back in Fayetteville since last fall with her family. They presently lived on Lafayette. She stated she had sent a letter and would like the commission to consider her concerns. She believed that the space of 695 people would be out of scale with the area. There were no parking requirements when the main hours of operation coincide with those of other businesses in the area. She expressed concerns that the parking would overflow into the neighborhoods. She requested the occupancy be reduced or a condition added that the parking not overflow into the neighborhoods. She expressed her concern that Dickson Street would become a problem area because of the high concentration of alcohol consumption. Mr. Sugg questioned if the occupancy was based on the Fire Marshall standards. Mr. Shewmaker stated it was in compliance with the City Code. • Ms. Little stated the assembly occupancy was one person per seven square foot net would allow 681 occupancy, the employee and support areas was one per 300square feet gross which would • Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 Page 14 allow 10 occupants, and dorm area was one per 200 square feet gross which would be four occupants which would be a total of 695 people. Mr. Shewmaker addressed an issue brought up by Ms. Marinoni. He stated that in most of the clubs in Fayetteville, the band takes the "gate" while the benefit or the profit of the club owner was derived from the sale of alcohol. They were not going to do that; they were guaranteeing the band instead of giving them the gate.. The people would not be drunk all the time. If they were, they would be out of the building. They were going to have a beer and wine permit ( Malt based). They prefer to stay away from hard liquor. He stated there had been members of the commission on a committee that had worked on parking in the Dickson street area, and as a result of their efforts, quality businesses were coming to Dickson, stating there was a florist and artist moving to Dickson. He stated there were going be efforts in the future for more parking, but he was hoping the development process would create enough wealth generated in the area to help afford parking, instead of stopping the improvements. Mr. Forney questioned Ms. Marinoni about problems with parking. Ms. Johnson questioned if they had authority to do any thing in that region to do with parking. • Ms. Little stated they did not have any authority. Ms. Johnson stated the parking issue was not appropriate in this discussion. Mr. Forney stated he was not trying to solve parking problems, but was tring to understand what effect this could have on the neighborhood. Mr. Allred stated that what was being requested was a conditional use to allow them to dance and if that is denied they could still maintain exactly what they are planning on doing but they would not be allowed to dance. So the club, alcohol, and the parking was not what they were talking about. They were discussing if they were going to allow them to dance or just stand around. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve CU96-24 subject to staff comments. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. The roll was called and the motion passed by a vote of 8-0-1. Ms. Johnson abstaining. 0 /�Lt3 t9l1q • Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 Page 15 CU96-25.00 CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW AN EATING PLACE IN AN R -O ROBERT MCNEESE- S. OF LAFAYETTE AND E. OF WEST AVE. The last item on the agenda was submitted by Robert McNeese for property located south of Lafayette and east of West Ave. The property is zoned R -O and contains approximately 5,500 square foot. The request was for a conditional use to allow an eating place in an R -O district. The staff recommended approval contingent upon the following: 1. Any proposed lighting be directed away from adjacent properties. 2. Any proposed signage be no larger than four square feet and approved by the Inspection Division. 3. The shared driveway being paved as well as the required four parking spaces (one must be ADA accessible). 4. Any additions (rear landing and steps) as required by Building Inspections meet required • setbacks or be no higher than 30". 5. Compliance with conditional use criteria, section 160.195 with specific regard to refuse location, and ingress/egress (delivery drivers shall exit property in a forward motion). Ms. Johnson stated the application requested an eating place, but what was proposed was a carry out, there would be no eating on the property. She added Ms. Marinoni had submitted a letter for their consideration. Mr. Robert McNeese stated that he and his wife operated an identical business in Bella Vista. They were interested in delivery only, focusing on the university students. He stated they used a gas grill and a two burner stove. They would employ two to three drivers including himself. They did not intend to change the outer appearance of the building except what was required by the City. Ms. Johnson questioned if he had seen the list of the five conditions that were a part of the staff approval. Mr. McNeese stated that he had and he did sign a copy. Mr. Allred questioned if a sign would be prohibited with this application. • Ms. Little stated the zoning was R -O and in that zoning they were allowed four square feet • Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 Page 16 signage. Mr. Odom questioned how much traffic the delivery drivers would create. Ms. Little stated it would have peak hours with traffic concentrations of two to three hours. Mr. McNeese stated the only traffic was their own driver and they usually carried two to three orders at a time. There would be less traffic than the hair salon and the church across the street. It would be minimal: two to three drivers each making two trips an hour. Mr. Allred questioned if they could tie the conditional use to the individual/operator of the business since he did not own the building. Ms. Little stated they could. Mr. Tucker questioned if any of the customers came to them. • Mr. McNeese stated that only two to three percent even knew where they were located. The building they were currently operating out of was 12'X24'. Mr. Harbinson questioned where the four parking spaces would be located. Mr. McNeese replied they would be located on the southwest side of the building, adjacent to the parking lot of the U of A Archeology dept., adding they were adjacent to the University Baptist parking lot. There were parking lots on two sides. Ms. Paula Marinoni, requested they declaim the conditional use of a food establishment, fearing it would set a precedent and adding it was not compatible with its present residential use. She added it was one of the oldest streets in town and should be planned carefully. She stated there needed to be a plan to help preserve Lafayette. Mr. Len Schaper stated there were already commercial properties on Dickson that could house this business, and he expressed concern about moving commercial businesses into the residential area. He was concerned about the ingress and egress of delivery cars. He thought it would be more appropriate on Dickson. He added that delivery drivers tended to be young and they tended to drive very quickly and there were kids in this area. He added they wanted to encourage residential use downtown. Mr. Randy Zerher stated the businesses needed to be kept on Dickson. He added the traffic in • Bella Vista would be less than what there would be for campus. aG� • Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 Page 17 Ms. Tara Little stated she opposed the rezoning, adding it was a residential area and Lafayette was used by children going and coming from school. Mr. Bill Putman, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd, the property owners, stated Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd would agree with any of the conditions imposed. Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd had lived in the area for more than twenty one years and they were concerned about the changing character of the neighborhood, but the fact remains that the character of Lafayette had changed. The property discussed was across from Vander -venter street which was adjacent to the sanctuary of UBC. There was parking behind the structure and parking to the east. If it was easy to rent the house as a residence, they would not be here asking for the conditional use, but the Lloyds had tried to do that and they have not been successful. No one wants to live surrounded by parking. There is now a surplus of student housing and people with older housing have had problems renting them out. The concerns that were expressed about traffic should be considered by looking at the location of the property. Washington Street was several blocks away and the hours that the children were in school were not the same hours that the business would be in operation. They did not overlap at this time, and the only time they might would be around lunch at some future point, but that would not be a time when children would be on the streets. Ms. Marinoni's home was three to four blocks from this across the railroad tracks and he doubted if the character of her • neighborhood would be affected. The neighborhood character was appropriate for this use. He added it was strictly a delivery business; there would not be any people off the street, there would not be people driving up through a drive-through. He added at peak operation there would be nine cars in and out of parking lot in an hour. Mr. Odom questioned if there could be a condition added that there could not be any dine -in at the business. Mr. McNeese added that would be agreeable to him. They did not like to serve people in the building. Ms. Johnson stated she was surprised to see a parking lot behind the building as well as one to the east, and to say that it was in a thriving residential neighborhood was inaccurate. The church tower was several stories tall as was the archeology dept. next door. It was the only street that served the Post Office; it served a major auto parts store and grocery store; and it was a major entry for the University. She did not think it captured the nature of the neighborhood at that location. Mr. Odom stated it was zoned residential -office and it was not a request for rezoning but for conditional use. 0 Mr. Allred suggested not allowing any signage to keep it looking more residential. • Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 Page 18 Mr. Forney expressed concern with the dumpster and the activity it would generate. Mr. McNeese stated there was very little trash because everything was sent out. What there was was bagged. They had canceled their dumpster service in Bella Vista because they did not have enough to put in it. It would generate less trash than a household with three children. He added the location was as far off the street as possible. Ms. Hoffman expressed concern about the drivers having to turn left to the university area and thought it could be a dangerous situation. Mr. McNeese stated he had not noticed any problems with it, adding they would have less traffic than UBC across the street and there were other businesses on the street with more traffic. Ms. Hoffman questioned if he had looked at other properties. Mr. McNeese stated they had, but they did not need a large location and everything had a lot of square footage and a lot of expense. They could not justify the expense. They could not handle • the overhead. Mr. Forney stated there was zoning on the street for C-3 which would allow for eating places by right. He would vote for the conditional use, because the property was not in good shape now and some use would be better than no use. He thought there were probably areas better for this use but he did not see this doing any damage. Mr. Sugg stated because of the church, it was cut off from the rest of the street and it became more of an extension to the Dickson Street commercial area. He did not see it as a big change from what was allowed in the zoning of that area. Mr. Allred stated that it was a conditional use and they could limit its use for one year and then reevaluate it after one year and if there had been any problems it could be denied at the end of the year. Mr. Odom stated he would be in favor of it if that was a condition. Mr. Harbison questioned Mr. McNeese if he would object to not being allowed to have a sign. Mr. McNeese stated they would like to have a small sign to let people know where they were but he would be happy with the four square feet sign on the porch or the building. E • Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 Page 19 MOTION Mr. Odom moved to approve the item subject to staff recommendations and the additional requirement that no on-site food be served and the approval be for one year only. If there were major complaints from neighbors during that time they would review it after one year. Mr. Sugg seconded the motion. The role was called and the motion passed with a vote of 6-2-0. Ms. Hoffman and Mr. Harbison voting nay. • 0 21,F